Category Archives: 2018-19

US18/19-05: Changes to Department Honors Process

Date of Notice: November 28, 2018
Current Status: Notice Given
Motion Type: Legislation
Sponsor: Undergraduate Council


Section I

1.1 WHEREAS the Senate tasked the Academic Council in motion US17/18-15 with responding to several recommendations from the Honors Task Force Report;

1.2 WHEREAS the Academic Council asked the undergraduate council to address the recommendations as they fall under the undergraduate council charge

1.3 WHEREAS the undergraduate council consulted reviewed the Honors Task Force report and developed the attached guidelines over 3 undergraduate council meeting

Section II

BE IT THEREFORE MOVED that the Senate approve and adopt the attached Departmental or Program Honors Guidelines effective Fall 2019.

Related Documents

Department Honors Guidelines 2019

US18/19-03: Addendum to Spring 2018 Curriculum Report

Date of Notice: Dec 12, 2018
Current Status: Notice Given
Motion type: Legislation
Sponsor: UO Committee on Courses


Section I

1.1 WHEREAS there was a technical glitch in the Course Leaf system that prevented course changes approved by the UO Committee on Courses from appearing in the Spring 2018 Curriculum Report;

2.2 BE IT THEREFORE MOVED that the University Senate retroactively approves the additional course changes outlined in the Addendum to the Spring 2018 Curriculum Report (please see related documents).

Related Documents

Addendum to Spring 2018 Curriculum Report

Senate Meeting Agenda – January 16, 2019


Location: EMU 145 & 146 (Crater Lake rooms)
3:00 – 5:00 P.M.

3:00 P.M.    Call to order

  • Introductory Remarks; Senate President Bill Harbaugh
  • Remarks: President Schill
  • Nominations for Honorary Degrees; Elizabeth Skowron
  • Conflict of Interest/Commitment policy draft updates; Elizabeth Skowron

3:20 PM    Approval of Minutes

  • October 3, 2018
  • November 14, 2018
  • November 28, 2018

3:25 PM      Business/ Reports:

4:55 PM    Open Discussion
4:56 PM    Reports
4:57 PM    Notice(s) of Motion

  • Changes to temp course policies for new majors; Frances White

    4:59 PM    Other Business
    5:00 PM    Adjourn to Faculty Club through front door of Schnitzer Museum

US18/19-02: Approval of Curriculum Report, Fall 2018

Date of Notice: October 3, 2018
Current Status: Notice Given
Motion Type: Legislation
Sponsor: UO Committee on Courses


Section I

1.1 WHEREAS the UO Committee on Courses has submitted the Fall Term 2018 Preliminary Curriculum Report for the University Senate review;

Section II

2.1 BE IT THEREFORE MOVED the University Senate approves the Fall 2018 Curriculum Report as submitted by the UO Committee on Courses.

Senate Meeting Agenda – November 28, 2018


Location: EMU 145 & 146 (Crater Lake rooms)
3:00 – 5:00 P.M.

3:00 P.M.    Call to order

3:05 PM Introductory Remarks; Senate President Bill Harbaugh

3:20 PM    Presentation on Teaching Evaluation reform; Ginger Clark, USC Associate Professor of Clinical Education and former Academic Senate President

3:50 PM      Business/ Reports:

  • Teaching Evaluation Warning Language; Bill Harbaugh (See below for draft language. Discussion, possible vote)
  • Vote: US18/19-02: Approval of Curriculum Report, Fall term 2018; Frances White (Vote)
  • Policy for faculty membership on committees, task forces and advisory groups; Bill Harbaugh (Presentation and discussion)

4:20 PM    UO’s legislative agenda; Libby Batlan & Hans Bernard, UO State and Community Affairs (Presentation and discussion)

4:40 PM.    UO’s new approach to Dual Career Support; Rhonda Smith & Melanie Muenzer, Provost’s Office (Presentation and discussion)

4:56 PM    Open Discussion
4:57 PM    Reports
4:58 PM    Notice(s) of Motion
4:59 PM    Other Business
5:00 PM    Adjourn

Draft: For discussion for Senate adoption per

Warning: Bias in Student Course Evaluations

Research has shown that student evaluations, particularly numerical ratings, are marred by bias against women, racial and ethnic minorities, and other groups, and are generally unrelated to teaching effectiveness. Despite these problems, numerical ratings using our current instrument may still be collected, and past numerical ratings may still be used in teaching evaluation. The UO Senate, in cooperation with the Office of the Provost, is revising UO’s teaching evaluation instruments and practices in response to this research. During this transition, numerical student evaluations of teaching should not be used as a standalone measure of teaching quality for any university purpose. Instead, teaching should be evaluated primarily using instructor self-reflection, peer reviews, and substantive written student comments, in alignment with the academic unit’s definition of teaching excellence as that is developed.


(Note: See Uttl et al. (2017), Meta-analysis of faculty’s teaching effectiveness: Student evaluation of teaching ratings and student learning are not related, Studies in Education Evaluation, at


Senate Meeting Agenda – November 14, 2018


Location: EMU 145 & 146 (Crater Lake rooms)
3:00 – 5:00 P.M.

3:00 P.M.   Call to Order

  • Introductory Remarks: Senate President Bill Harbaugh
  • Remarks:  Provost Banavar

3:30 P.M.   Approval of Minutes, October 17, 2018 and October 31, 2018

3:30 P.M.   Business/Reports

  • Retreat Debrief (Presentation slides)
  • A policy for selecting faculty members for committees that are established by the administration
  • Undergraduate Council review of admissions policies
  • Consent Calendar
  • Discussion: Intimate Relationships Policy (with Town Halls input)
  • Brief presentation on UO Leadership Academy; Chris Ruiz de Esparza and Jennifer Espinola
  • Academic Council: Emergency and/or Contingency Planning
  • Discussion: Conflict of Interest/Conflict of Commitment Policy draft; Cass Moseley and Elizabeth Skowron

4:50 P.M.    Open Discussion
4:50 P.M.   Reports
4:55 P.M.   Notice(s) of Motion
4:55 P.M.   Other Business
5:00 P.M.   Adjourn

Senate Nominees to Task Force on Potential Reorganization of CAS

From: Senate President <>
Subject: SENATE: Pedro Garcia-Caro and Frances White elected as CAS TF nominees by acclamation
Date: October 31, 2018 at 2:40:52 PM PDT

Dear Senators –

We had two self-nominations for the two Senate nominees for the task force on the potential CAS reorganization:

1) Pedro Garcia-Caro (Romance Languages):

I have served as a senator representing the Humanities Division of the College of Arts and Sciences for six years (2011-2014 and 2016-2018) and have often voiced my concerns for the increasing marginalization of languages, general education, the liberal arts and the humanities on our campus. As Secretary of AAUP-Oregon I have written in our local newsletter on the challenges faced by the Liberal  Arts in our current political and economic setting as well as on the role of private interests and donors in a Public University (2018). I am not completely attached to the current college configuration, for instance, I don’t think it has fomented well interdisciplinary programs, and research experiences to their full potential. This will continue to be a key challenging issue that might not be best resolved with a new division of colleges and which may be tied to the larger budgetary issues that have plagued our campus for years. Being part of this task force I will actively interrogate these different models and take part in the discussion of key details related to the way in which a reorganized college or set of new collegial organizations might best contribute to enhance disciplinary and interdisciplinary experiences in particular across the Social Sciences and the Humanities, the areas where I locate my own research as a cultural historian working on Latin America.

2) Frances White (Anthropology):

As a member of a highly interdisciplinary department and intellectual area, I am deeply concerned about the impact these discussions and decisions has on interdisciplinarity both the faculty research perspective and, from my positions on the various academic committees and councils, on the undergraduate student and graduate student experiences in interdisciplinary courses and programs.

Frances and Pedro are therefore elected by acclamation, and the Senator leadership hereby passes their names on to the Provost as the Senate’s nominees. Thanks to them both for their work supporting shared governance on this important task force.

I encourage all Senators to work with their constituents and Provost Banavar to help find nominees for the remaining task force openings.

Bill Harbaugh
UO Senate Pres, Econ Prof

From: Senate President <>
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 10:08 AM
Subject: RESPONSE NEEDED, SENATE CAS Caucus : Call for nominations for appointments to task force on the potential CAS reorganization

Dear CAS Senators –

As you know, President Schill and Provost Banavar are convening a task force, chaired by Assoc CAS Dean Karen Ford, to advise them on the potential reorganization of CAS into several colleges. The details of this are at

The charge says that

“At least two of the CAS faculty members shall be selected from names nominated by the president and vice president of the University Senate. ”

Senate VP Elizabeth Skowron has decided to recuse herself this from because she is not CAS faculty, so Chris Sinclair as Immediate past Senate president and I have decided on the following process to select nominees. (Neither Chris nor myself are interested in being on the task force, given our other obligations.)

1) Alll interested CAS faculty senators (I.e. the members of the CAS Caucus) can self-nominate by emailing me at, along with an optional <250 word statement about why you would like to serve on the task force. This is due by midnight this Tuesday, Oct 30. 

2) On Wednesday Oct 31st I will email all CAS Caucus members the names and statements of the nominees. The Senate staff will then collect votes by email, due by 5PM Friday Nov 2nd. Each CAS faculty senator can vote for up to two nominees.

We will forward the names of the top two vote-getters to Karen Ford as the Senate nominees for task force membership. This process will ensure that there are at least 2 CAS Senators among the 20 task force members.

I will also forward the names, statements, and number of votes for all those submitting self-nominations, in the hope that the administration will find that information useful in picking the remaining 7 CAS faculty members.

The task force’s charge also includes a timeline saying that the task force is to make a report by April 15, and that the President and Provost will make the decision in Mid-May, for discussion at the June 3-4 Trustees meeting and a likely announcement date. This process does not include a Senate for. Our feeling is that any decision to reorganize CAS departments into new colleges is a significant academic matter that will require Senate approval, and we will take up the question as to how to best do this in the Senate soon, so I’m sending this message to all Senators for information, but at the moment it only requires action from Senators representing CAS divisions, i.e. those on the CAS Caucus.


Bill Harbaugh
Economics Prof & Senate Pres
University of Oregon

Nominations for task force to analyze the structure of CAS

From: CAS Dean <>
Subject: [Cas-allemps] Nominations for task force to analyze the structure of CAS
Date: November 1, 2018 at 10:39:59 AM PDT
To: “‘‘” <>
Sent on behalf of Provost Jayanth Banavar

November 1, 2018

Dear College of Arts and Sciences Colleagues,

I hope this note finds you well. Our administration continues to work with Karen Ford, CAS senior divisional dean, to determine the membership of the task force that will soon begin analyzing the structure of the college.

Yesterday, the Senate submitted the names of two tenure-track faculty members chosen by acclamation, and I’m grateful for their suggestions. The deadline for all of campus to nominate faculty or staff from CAS is Friday, November 2, and I write to encourage you to get me the names of those who you feel might be good to serve on the task force.

By Friday, November 9, we hope to finalize the membership of the task force and move forward on the important work of the future of CAS.

This is a critically important endeavor we are embarking on. The charge of the task force is straightforward. Members will be asked to analyze the advantages and disadvantages of: (i) the current structure (combining the three divisions of Humanities, Social Sciences, and Natural Sciences), (ii) a split of CAS into two colleges (Humanities/Social Sciences and Natural Sciences), and (iii) a split of CAS into three separate colleges (one for each division).

There will be much to debate, and I am eager to hear what the task force discusses. Once the task force starts its work, I will be providing regular updates to the campus community. The meetings will be open to the public.

Please send me an email with your thoughts on potential members for the task force to You can also link to more information about the task force’s charge on the website for the Office of the Provost.

Jayanth Banavar
Provost and Senior Vice President


Senate Meeting Agenda – October 31, 2018


Location: EMU 145 & 146 (Crater Lake rooms)
3:00 – 5:00 P.M.

3:00 P.M.   Call to Order

  • Introductory Remarks : Senate President Bill Harbaugh

3:15 P.M.  New Business

4:50 P.M.    Open Discussion
4:50 P.M.   Reports
4:55 P.M.   Notice(s) of Motion
4:55 P.M.   Other Business
5:00 P.M.   Adjourn

US18/19-01: Approval of Online Sports Product Management program

Date of Notice: Oct 9, 2018

Current Status: Approved October 31, 2018

Motion Type: Legislation

Sponsor: Graduate Council


Section I

1.1 WHEREAS the Graduate Council met on October 24, 2018, to discuss the proposal for a new online delivery mode for the existing Master’s of Science degree in Sports Product Management as attached to this motion; and

1.2 WHEREAS the Graduate Council deemed the proposal to meet the University’s standards for a graduate degree, and therefore voted to recommend that the Senate approve the proposed degree;

Section II

2.1 BE IT THEREFORE MOVED that the University Senate approves online delivery of the Master’s of Science degree in Sports Product Management, and authorizes the Provost to take the necessary steps to move forward with it.

ONLINE Sports Product Management proposal

University to consolidate email services

From: “Jessie Minton” <>
Subject: University to consolidate email services
Date: October 24, 2018 at 1:00:21 PM PDT

Dear Colleagues,

During my first 18 months as chief information officer at the University of Oregon, I have been delighted to find a wide variety of partnerships across campus. Technology supports our mission and helps us reach our potential through collaboration across campus, and around the Pacific Northwest, the country, and the world.

To enhance our ability to work together collaboratively, I am very excited to announce a project to improve email service at the UO. We have begun a process that will consolidate email and calendaring services for all students and employees to one service by 2023. In an additional email improvement, all new university alumni may now keep their university email addresses for their lifetimes via an email forward, which we started offering this past June.

The email consolidation project will move students and employees to UOmail, a cloud-hosted version of the Exchange email service that is currently used by two-thirds of UO employees. Moving everyone to UOmail will provide a number of benefits, including:

  • Consistent user experience
  • Significant feature enhancements
  • Improved collaboration throughout the university
  • Improved information security and operating efficiency

Currently, university IT staff operate multiple, duplicative email services. This results in inconsistent user experiences, operational inefficiencies, and increased costs for support and maintenance. Students currently use a different email service than most UO employees, which creates a barrier for collaboration and previously hindered our ability to offer students the use of their UO email addresses after graduation.

In planning this change, we have worked with President Schill; Provost Banavar; the Academic Leadership Team, including the deans; the IT Steering Committee; University Senate leadership; and campus IT directors. Microsoft’s cloud-based email service was selected for UOmail because of its features and price, and Microsoft’s ability to meet the university’s data security requirements. That service also integrates with Office 365 and OneDrive, which are widely used on campus already, and the university will benefit from Microsoft’s highly available cloud services.

Because email is essential to our work, some people may be concerned about how these changes will impact them. Most employees will not need to make many changes when moving to UOmail because much of the work will occur behind the scenes. For employees who need to switch, university IT staff will coordinate the work with you and help you learn how to use the software and features offered by UOmail.

This project will provide UOmail to all new students and employees starting in summer 2019. The next major milestone of this project will move the remaining one-third of employees from their current mail service to UOmail by September 2019. By 2023, all remaining students will be using UOmail, and the transition will be complete. During all phases, Information Services will work closely with departmental IT staff to coordinate the transition.

We will share details of this project and its progress on the Information Services website at The university and Information Services are committed to working with IT staff to minimize any impacts and ensure a smooth transition to the new system. We look forward to improving email and calendaring services for our campus community.


Jessie Minton
Vice Provost for Information Services and Chief Information Officer

Senate Meeting Agenda – October 17, 2018


Location: EMU 145 & 146 (Crater Lake rooms)
3:00 – 5:00 P.M.

3:00 P.M.   Call to Order

  • Introductory Remarks and retreat plans: Senate President Bill Harbaugh
  • Remarks: President Mike Schill
  • Remarks: ASUO President Maria Gallegos-Chacon

3:30 P.M.  New Business

4:45 P.M.    Open Discussion
4:50 P.M.   Reports
4:55 P.M.   Notice(s) of Motion
4:55 P.M.   Other Business
5:00 P.M.   Adjourn

Senate Meeting Agenda – October 3, 2018


Location: EMU 145 & 146 (Crater Lake rooms)
3:00 – 5:00 P.M.

3:00 P.M.   Call to Order

  • Introductory Remarks; Senate President Bill Harbaugh
  • Remarks; Senate Vice President Elizabeth Skowron
  • Remarks; Provost Banavar
  • Remarks; Bob Guldberg (Knight Campus)

3:40 P.M.  Votes

3:45 P.M.   New Business

Discussion of upcoming policies, discussions and issues for fall quarter

4:45 P.M.    Open Discussion
4:50 P.M.   Reports

  • Status of committee reports and where to find them

4:55 P.M.   Notice(s) of Motion

4:56 P.M.   Other Business

  • Senate Retreat: October 31, 20185:00 P.M.   Adjourn

UO Presidential Contract renewal input

On TuesdaySep 4, 2018, at 5:05 PM, Angela Wilhelms <> wrote:

Hi Bill,

The contract is a personnel matter between the president and the board, in this case led by the board chair. General input as you suggest was not solicited. As you are aware, matters before the board – including this contract – are posted online for review and anyone is able to make public comment if they so desire.

If you are asking more generally about the valuation, not the contract per se, the adopted presidential evaluation process was followed, which includes feedback from direct reports, deans, and trustees. The faculty, staff, and student trustee often provide information gleaned from the prior year’s office hours, interactions with various groups, etc. And much of the trustees information is also informed by routine updates. The more comprehensive 360-style review is in year five.


Board of Trustees of the University of Oregon
Resolution: Amendments to Presidential Review Management and Process

From: Bill Harbaugh <>
Sent: Tuesday, September 4, 2018 10:32 AM
To: Angela Wilhelms <>
Cc: Elizabeth Skowron <>; Melanie Muenzer <>
Subject: Presidential contract renewal input

Dear Board Secretary Wilhelms:

I’m writing as Senate President to ask you to provide the Senate with information showing which UO faculty members, students, administrators, or employees were asked to provide to provide input to the board regarding President Schill’s proposed contract renewal, and what process was used to solicit this input (e.g. letters, anonymous surveys, etc.)


Bill Harbaugh
Economics Prof & Senate Pres
University of Oregon


President Schill’s Response to US17/18-20: Differential Tuition

From: President Michael Schill <>
Subject: President Schill’s response to Senate resolution US17/18-20
Date: July 20, 2018 at 2:19:21 PM PDT
To: Senate President <>, Senate Vice President <>

Cc: Betina Lynn <>, Melanie Muenzer <>, Greg Stripp <>, Angela Wilhelms <>

Dear Senate President Bill Harbaugh and Vice President Elizabeth Skowron,

Attached is a letter from President Schill regarding Senate resolution US17/18-20. The Framework document referenced in the letter is also attached.

Please distribute this letter to members of the University of Oregon Senate.


Office of the President

President Schill’s Response
Differential Tuition Framework

Temporary Discrimination Policy Extension

From: Bill Harbaugh <>
Subject: Re: Policy 580.015 – Discrimination
Date: June 29, 2018 at 12:36:30 AM PDT
To: Angela Wilhelms <>
Cc: Melanie Muenzer <>, Elizabeth Skowron <>, Missy Matella <>

Dear Angela –

Writing as Senate President, I agree that given this situation the best course of action is to extend the current policy, problematic as it is, for another 6 months.

My understanding is that AGC Missy Matella had been the point person for the Discrimination Policy revision process, and that she will continue to be in her new HR job. I’m ccing her on this, and I would appreciate it if she could send the Senate a list of the set of policies that the administration believes will interact with the Discrimination Policy, with her explanation of the interactions, so that we can formulate a plan with her and you to get this and the other policies revised in a timely fashion.


Bill Harbaugh
Economics Prof & Senate Pres
University of Oregon

On SundayJun 24, 2018, at 1:42 PM, Angela Wilhelms <> wrote:

Dear Bill and Elizabeth:

This email is in my university secretary role.

As you know, the UO inherited a number of Oregon Administrative Rules (OARs) from the state and has systematically been working through these to ensure they are updated, necessary, clear, etc.

One such OAR is 580.015, et seq., titled “Discrimination.” This OAR was out of date with certain federal requirements and other UO policies, so the president enacted some temporary changes in 2016 to account for this. As you know, temporary changes are limited to a 6-mo lifespan.  These have been renewed a couple of times and we are at a point where they need to be renewed again.

I recognize that the spirit of temporary policies is not simply continued extension and hope that you believe me when I say these multiple extensions are not a way to circumvent the policy process.

In actually, it’s just a complicated set of policies that Title IX, AAEO, General Counsel, HR and others have not wanted to finish until other related policies are done.

The current temporary approval expires July 12 and there is a request by the offices above for one more extension. They need more time during a school year (when faculty and students are around) to work on permanent edits and then have the senate consider those that relate to the various academic sections of the policy.

The policy can be found here, and attached is the redline that shows the changes currently in effect from the base policy.

Please let me know if you wish to discuss this further or have any questions.

Thank you for your understanding.


Angela Wilhelms
University Secretary & Advisor to the President
University of Oregon
O: 541.346.5561
C: 541.931.5426

UO Policy 580.015 Discrimination – TEMP CHANGES REDLINE 08-18-16-2gx8xtp


Oregonian Op-Ed and UO Senate Resolution

From: Bill Harbaugh <>
Subject: Oregonian Op-Ed and UO Senate Resolution.
Date: July 8, 2018 at 8:52:09 PM PDT

Cc: Chris Sinclair <>, ASUO President <>, Mike Schill <>, John Nicols <>, Chris Phillips <>

Dear Professor Gilley –

I read your Oregonian Op-Ed today at

There’s much I agree with. However I want to set the record straight regarding the UO Senate resolution that you mention. I was UO Senate Vice President last year (and am president this year), and I helped write the resolution. You seem to have mis-read it as supporting the “hecklers’ veto”. It does not. It clearly states:

2.1 BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the UO Senate supports the rights of students to peacefully protest during university events, even disruptively, so long as those protests do not prevent speakers from being heard and the audience from hearing what they have to say; 

This is the latest in a series of Senate actions that have all taken the same stand – supporting the rights of speakers, and protesters, to be heard. Here is the explanation I gave to the UO Board of Trustees last month:

… Second, I want to explain the Senate’s resolution “In Support of the UO Student Collective”. This is the group of students that disrupted President Schill’s “State of the University”speech in October.

… [UO President Schill] has said that with this resolution the Senate endorsed the sorts of disruption of classes by students who might object to something about the course content, as has occurred at other universities, such as Reed and Evergreen, where students have essentially shut down courses on particular subjects.

This is not at all what our Senate has endorsed. The resolution states clearly:

2.1 BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the UO Senate supports the rights of students to peacefully protest during university events, even disruptively, so long as those protests do not prevent speakers from being heard and the audience from hearing what they have to say;

I’m not a lawyer, but this language is consistent with everything I understand about the First Amendment, everything I believe about academic freedom, and everything that UO’s other policies on these matters state. People have a right to speak, and those who object to that speech have the right to have their objections heard even if that disrupts and causes inconvenience for the speaker and the audience.

What those who object cannot do, and again I quote from our resolution, is prevent speakers from being heard and the audience from hearing what they have to say. 

Our resolution does not endorse the sorts of disruptions that prevent faculty, or our President, from teaching what they want to teach or saying what they want to say. It specifically speaks against that, only allowing “disruption” so long as that disruption doesn’t prevent the professor’s lecture, or for that matter the President’s talk, from continuing.

Our resolution does not endorse allowing the actions of the Students Collective taking the podium and shutting down President Schill’s address – although it does call for some leniency in their subsequent discipline, and some reforms to make sure free speech discipline cases are handled with special care. These were students, after all.

If this is not clear, please see the UO policy on Academic Freedom, which the Senate passed in 2014 and which the UO President signed, which states:

The University’s responsibility to help students to think critically and independently requires that members of the university community have the right to investigate and discuss matters, including those that are controversial, inside and outside of class, without fear of institutional restraint. It is the responsibility of speakers, listeners and all members of our community to respect others and to promote a culture of mutual inquiry throughout the University community.

Or see the UO Policy on Freedom of Inquiry and Free Speech, which we passed in 2010, which states:

The University supports free speech with vigor, including the right of presenters to offer opinion, the right of the audience to hear what is presented, and the right of protesters to engage with speakers in order to challenge ideas, so long as the protest does not disrupt or stifle the free exchange of ideas. 


I don’t see how the Senate and the faculty could be any more clear about our position, and I’m tired of hearing people misrepresent it. Though of course I’m open to any arguments, even disruptive ones.

Thank you. Questions?

I hope that this makes clear that this UO Senate resolution is not a good example of faculty opposition to free-speech, and that you will search for a better one to use instead.

I’m posting this on the UO Senate website, and I’m ccing professor Chris Sinclair (Math), who was Senate President when this motion passed, the current ASUO student president, UO President Mike Schill, as well as UO professors John Nicols (History) and Chris Philips (Math) since they are the UO NAS members that I know.


Bill Harbaugh
Economics Prof & Senate Pres
University of Oregon